Malcolm wrote:No, Fascism never comes about because of a popular mandate.

Germany 1933 (and please do not trot out the excuse that the Nazi's never won an electoral majority that my German friends do), Austria 1938 (and possibly 1934 under Dollfuss), Mussolini, and the Iron Guard in Romania for starters.

Malcolm wrote:[Actually, Facism in Italy, Germany and Spain came about because of lack of participation. For example, in 1933 in Germany, the Nazis only won because electiral turnout was abysmal.

In the case of Germany that is untrue. Note that Germany was and still is a parliamentary system so absolute majorities are unnecessary (and practically speaking, rare).

The Nazi's came in 1st in July 1932 with 37% of the vote (71% electoral turnout, the SPD came in 2nd, followed by the Communists) and 1st in November 1932 with 33% of the vote* (also 71% electoral turnout, also SPD and KPD 2nd and 3rd).

The Nazi's formed a coalition with other right-wing parties but this still did not give them a majority. President Hindenburg asked Hitler to form a government in the expectation that he would fail.

But low electoral turnout was not to be seen.

Kirt

*I was at the Reichstag in 1992 or so with a German friend and we were watching a presentation of the rise of the Nazi's to power. When the graphic showing the slight decline in support for the Nazi's came up he was ecstatic. "Look , they were losing support!" However such short-term declines are meaningless, esp. since the Nazi vote had doubled from 1930.

Dan74 wrote:I guess this board is predominantly left-leaning, but I am interested in the full spectrum of views, so any conservatives/republicans - please feel welcome to contribute.

What caught me by surprise in this saga was the willingness of European governments to cowtow to the US and first obstruct Bolivian presidential plane in violation of diplomatic norms and then fall over each other in denying Snowden asylum.

I think the pejorative "imperialist" has been used quite frequently and I am surprised just how far the US influence extends. It seems that the powerplay between the three countries involved in this saga, namely the US, China and Russia, has been brought in sharp relief by these events. Europe seems to have come out as a US vassal, much to my surprise and possibly many of its citizens.

The other aspect is how far are the governments going to go to pursue inconvenient citizens like Snowden, Assange, Manning, etc? How many conventions and human rights are going to be trampled on, how much intimidation goes on behind the scenes and what of sovereignty of smaller powers?

I'd be interested in comments because I am still quite puzzled by it all.

THis is the world supposed of freedom we are living in. There has been the time of the great dictatures, Hitler, Mussolini, Staline and few others. They are over and oldies. Today the process is much more subtile ... why to use dictature as we can use democraty? We can even fight against dictatures ... peoples love that. Why to enslave peoples, as they do it by themself? Time for dictatures and citizen is over, now we have democracy and consumers. Now we are great because we fight against terrorism (eluding that we have built those terrorisms) and this fight against terrorism is the best tool we ever had, dictators are really old crusts, with such a tool we are free to do what we want, spy on a large span, replace democratic law with what arrange us, we can make any monkey business useful to us and families and friends ... and so on. And time for revolution is over, first because we are given enough objects (tv, cars, houses ...) that we do not want to take the risk to loose, and also because army and police is so strong that no popular uprising cannot happen anymore.

This is the end, beautiful friend,This is the end my only friend, the end

Serge

It's the time for Democracy? Why you do believe that? Germany, Italy, and Russia were democracies before they became dictatorships.

You are joking? ... Germany had a Kaiser (Cesar in German), Russia had a Tsar (Cesar in Russian) and Italy was a very brain new republic, very unstable. So no democraties there ... and I do not understand your "It's the time for Democracy?" in the context of my publication ... what I said is that today there is no necessity of a dictature, democraty is doing well the job (enslave peoples for the profit of a few)

Sönam

By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.- Longchen Rabjam -

If 90% of the people are not well informed and if they vote according to what they dont know, their vote will be a chief against the vote of the 10% that are informed about things.

it's precisely so today ... anyway democraty was already the dictature of the majority, and as we all know always a minority has somecreativity. Therefore democraty is mediocraty ...

Sönam

By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.- Longchen Rabjam -

Malcolm wrote:[Actually, Facism in Italy, Germany and Spain came about because of lack of participation. For example, in 1933 in Germany, the Nazis only won because electiral turnout was abysmal.

In the case of Germany that is untrue.

It is true:

"The resources of big business and the state were thrown behind the Nazis' campaign to achieve saturation coverage all over Germany. Brownshirts and SS patrolled and marched menacingly through the streets of cities and towns. A "combination of terror, repression and propaganda was mobilized in every... community, large and small, across the land."[6] To further ensure the outcome of the vote would be a Nazi majority, Nazi organizations "monitored" the vote process. In Prussia 50,000 members of the SS, SA and Stahlhelm were ordered to monitor the votes as deputy sheriffs by acting Interior Minister Hermann Göring."

The 1933 elections was one of the greatest vote suppression campaigns in modern electoral history.

Konchog1 wrote:It's the time for Democracy? Why you do believe that? Germany, Italy, and Russia were democracies before they became dictatorships.

You are joking? ... Germany had a Kaiser (Cesar in German), Russia had a Tsar (Cesar in Russian) and Italy was a very brain new republic, very unstable. So no democraties there ... and I do not understand your "It's the time for Democracy?" in the context of my publication ... what I said is that today there is no necessity of a dictature, democraty is doing well the job (enslave peoples for the profit of a few)

Sönam

The Weimar Republic was a democracy, Russia was a democracy after the revolution until the Communists started a second revolution, and arguing that Italy was a new democracy and thus doesn't count is a 'moving the goalposts' fallacy. My point is, democracies turn into other systems and other systems turn into democracies.

Equanimity is the ground. Love is the moisture. Compassion is the seed. Bodhicitta is the result.

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.Through the qualities of meditating in that way,Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

Konchog1 wrote:History disagrees. From Caesar to Mao, dictators (which is what I assume you are referring to) have usually come into power through the passion of the people.

That depends very much on whose history one reads.

Actually, Facism in Italy, Germany and Spain came about because of lack of participation. For example, in 1933 in Germany, the Nazis only won because electiral turnout was abysmal.

Further, Mao and Ceasar did not come into power because of a popular mandate. They came into power through manipulation. In Ceasar's case, it was with the backing of his army.

Thank you, Malcolm. Ceasar's coming to power was a military coup by a General wildly popular with his troops - thus, they would do anything he commanded, including to seize Rome itself and fight a generation long civil war with the Republic. (Does anybody remember these details?) Mao was the leader of a military organization as well, that defeated the rival one. Most Germans in the political system (especially the military officers) couldn't stand the democracy forced on them by the Western Powers. Hence, the German State (the people populating it) were fine with democracy going away - though most of those conservatives wanted a return to monarchy, not fascism - Hitler played the field well. The moral of the story is that it is the people who have the weapons who determine the forms of government that exist.

Charlie.

Almost, but in Plutarch's Lives he makes it clear that the public loved Caesar, which is why they supported Caesar's adopted son becoming Emperor. Furthermore, the invasion across the Rubicon was to subdue Pompey not Rome. In fact, after Caesar took Rome, the people who fled came back once they saw Caesar wasn't looting the city.

As for Mao, the people generally hated the Nationalists for being corrupt and seeming to be pawns of the West. Mao promised modernization and national development.

So yes, military force provided the means, but both Caesar and Mao were supported by the people as well.

Equanimity is the ground. Love is the moisture. Compassion is the seed. Bodhicitta is the result.

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.Through the qualities of meditating in that way,Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

Malcolm wrote:[Actually, Facism in Italy, Germany and Spain came about because of lack of participation. For example, in 1933 in Germany, the Nazis only won because electiral turnout was abysmal.

In the case of Germany that is untrue.

It is true:

Totally untrue. The electoral turnouts in both elections in 1932 were > 70%. The turnout in 1930 was > 80% but by no means can the electoral turnout in the 1932 elections be characterized as "abysmal".

Then you go on to correctly quote from the events of the definitely manipulated 1933 election, which took place in March, 1933 - nearly two months after Hitler became Chancellor. Hindenburg asked Hitler to become Chancellor on the basis of the results of the July and November 1932 elections.

But even in the March, 1933 election the Nazi's only pulled < 45% of the vote and technically went into a coalition with Hugenberg's much smaller Nazi party. That coalition squeaked over 50% and Hindenberg chose to accept the election.

Hitler and the Nazi's did not have an electoral majority. But they did have an electoral mandate and a legal mandate under the German constitution.

cdpatton wrote:Thank you, Malcolm. Ceasar's coming to power was a military coup by a General wildly popular with his troops - thus, they would do anything he commanded, including to seize Rome itself and fight a generation long civil war with the Republic. (Does anybody remember these details?) Mao was the leader of a military organization as well, that defeated the rival one. Most Germans in the political system (especially the military officers) couldn't stand the democracy forced on them by the Western Powers. Hence, the German State (the people populating it) were fine with democracy going away - though most of those conservatives wanted a return to monarchy, not fascism - Hitler played the field well. The moral of the story is that it is the people who have the weapons who determine the forms of government that exist.

Charlie.

Almost, but in Plutarch's Lives he makes it clear that the public loved Caesar, which is why they supported Caesar's adopted son becoming Emperor. Furthermore, the invasion across the Rubicon was to subdue Pompey not Rome. In fact, after Caesar took Rome, the people who fled came back once they saw Caesar wasn't looting the city.

As for Mao, the people generally hated the Nationalists for being corrupt and seeming to be pawns of the West. Mao promised modernization and national development.

So yes, military force provided the means, but both Caesar and Mao were supported by the people as well.

I guess my main point is that the real "decisions" when it comes to changes in government are usually between people who have the power of violence. Sometimes there is an outright conflict, like a civil war, sometimes its much more of a chess game, as it happened with Germany and Hitler. But it comes down to, "What are you going to do to stop me?" And the answer is not "vote against you." It's much more visceral, since the stakes as so high.

Totally untrue. The electoral turnouts in both elections in 1932 were > 70%. The turnout in 1930 was > 80% but by no means can the electoral turnout in the 1932 elections be characterized as "abysmal".

Then you go on to correctly quote from the events of the definitely manipulated 1933 election, which took place in March, 1933 - nearly two months after Hitler became Chancellor. Hindenburg asked Hitler to become Chancellor on the basis of the results of the July and November 1932 elections.

But even in the March, 1933 election the Nazi's only pulled < 45% of the vote and technically went into a coalition with Hugenberg's much smaller Nazi party. That coalition squeaked over 50% and Hindenberg chose to accept the election.

Hitler and the Nazi's did not have an electoral majority. But they did have an electoral mandate and a legal mandate under the German constitution.

Kirt

But that really didn't have much to do with Hitler's dismantling of the Weimar Republic, did it? Yes, it allowed him into a key position in the government from which to do so - but did the German electorate vote for him to do so? My understanding is that it was through a well-played series of political maneuvers and getting the military to back him, ultimately - which decided not to oppose him for various reasons. All of those things were outside of elections and often illegal, really (such as using paramilitaries and police to suppress or eliminate opponents). I don't know why people focus so much on the elections. It was the failure of the government to maintain itself in the face of Hitler's illegalities that led to totalitarianism.

I think the apathy and cynicism of people towards democratic government will be a large factor in its arrival.

What is that saying in that poem? 'The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity'. I think that describes US politics pretty well. But the point is, how is that ever going to change if everyone simply writes it off? I think the attitudes of the citizenry are more troublesome than all the talk about the supposed evils of the government. After all the government is the creation of the people, and in a larger sense, also the projection of the collective consciousness. So what is the point in blaming 'them' for everything? There is no 'them'. 'They' are us.

Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas

kirtu wrote:Then you go on to correctly quote from the events of the definitely manipulated 1933 election, which took place in March, 1933 - nearly two months after Hitler became Chancellor. Hindenburg asked Hitler to become Chancellor on the basis of the results of the July and November 1932 elections.

But that really didn't have much to do with Hitler's dismantling of the Weimar Republic, did it?

Yes it was instrumental. Hitler becomes Chancellor on 30 Jan 1933. Then on 27 Feb 1933, just before the March 1933 parliamentary election, the Reichstag Fire breaks out and the Nazi's claim immediately that there was a Communist revolution occurring. Hindenburg signs the Reichstag Fire Decree the next day, effectively declaring martial law and suspension of civil liberties. In states (Land) that are run by the Nazi's (which were many), Communists were summarily arrested and the Communist party and press banned. In states not run by the Nazi's they were just banned.

Then the parliamentary election takes place. As Malcom pointed out, in Nazi dominated places places like East Prussia, a state ruled by Herman Goering, the election was manipulated. Even under those circumstances it was insufficient to gain an absolute majority so the Nazi's partner with Hugenberg's smaller Nazi party. Then they had an absolute majority in the Reichstag.

Then the Nazi's push the Enabling Act through in late March, 1933 (just after the election) which effectively enabled Hitler's cabinet to declare law. This seemed okay because not everyone in the cabinet was a Nazi (Fritz von Papen, for example, former Chancellor who was put there to keep an eye on Hitler) and because the Reichstag could actually overturn the decree. In practice that didn't happen. Hitler was made effective dictator just after the notorious election of March 1933 and the Nazi's had effectively taken over! But that's okay because President Hindenburg is still alive and under the Weimar constitution the President has strong powers. Still the Nazi's began creating Dachau in March 1933 and sending political prisoners there (and not just Communists). Then in 1934 Hindenburg dies. Instead of an election, Hitler abolishes the office of the President, declares himself Fuehrer and Chancellor and has the military take a personal oath to him. The military complies.

Until that moment Hitler had completely used the legal framework of the Weimar Republic to destroy it.

cdpatton wrote:Yes, it allowed him into a key position in the government from which to do so - but did the German electorate vote for him to do so?

My German friends say no. The Nazi's only got just under 45% of the parliamentary vote on their own in March 1933. That is huge in a parliamentary system. So I would have to retort that the German people did in fact vote for the Nazi policies in 1933. They had elections after that that were essentially just one party elections. But even though the election was manipulated, the German people did vote for the Nazi's and with Hugenberg's smaller Nazi party (which itself was a source of opposition earlier and later) they were able to legally rule.

cdpatton wrote:My understanding is that it was through a well-played series of political maneuvers and getting the military to back him, ultimately - which decided not to oppose him for various reasons.

Political maneuvers - many of them were legal and many weren't (until they finally dominated the courts after March 1933 there were some legal judgements against Goering in Prussia for example). But the key elements of Hitler's assumption of power were all strictly legal until he abolished the office of the President. At which point the military should have executed a coup but didn't. Why? Most of their leaders had believed that the Nazi's had stopped a Communist revolution. However the military itself was ambivalent about Hitler and the Nazi's.

cdpatton wrote:All of those things were outside of elections and often illegal, really (such as using paramilitaries and police to suppress or eliminate opponents). I don't know why people focus so much on the elections. It was the failure of the government to maintain itself in the face of Hitler's illegalities that led to totalitarianism.

As noted, at times before March 1933 the courts declared some Nazi actions illegal. But mostly they were on the border. Then after the Enabling Act what they did was completely legal. Political parties were banned legally and their leaders legally arrested and sent to concentration camps, All legal. All done in the name of public safety and to keep a revolution from happening.

In the end, Goering's comment during the Nuermberg Trials that it is easy to get the people to do what you want by declaring an emergency and that democracy itself is not immune to these tactics wasn't cynicism. He was telling the truth. This is apparently where Snowden eventually decided to take the action that he did. In the name of safety and defense against terrorism, the NSA has used loopholes in the law to technically spy on it's own people: a clear violation of it's mandate. So is this valid and does Snowden have a point?

The truth is we have no idea what the government, the judiciary and secret service are up to.Riffling through a biography of Barry Jones an Australian labour politician, in his bio he states 'when he met Ceausescu according to a dossier... had been persuaded by Fidel Castro that the Americans had techniques for poisoning men's suits and the Romanian leader was careful to wear new clothes every day to avoid an accumulated dosage'It makes for juicy reading but we are in the dark about whats really happening.

The truth is the United States and the west is fast on the way to becoming high-tech police states.80% of global GDP derives from the finance sector, porn, prostitution, military production and sales, drugs licit and illicit, gambling etc so there's alot to protect.

I suggest a shock and awe campaign backed with alternative media support and collaborative propaganda orchestrated by yours truly.

I will need a team of 30 people. 15 for scouting info, 7 for running surveys, and 8 for helping me with the arduous task of framing the cronies involved as terrible inhuman villains incapable of redemption.

Oh, also a cook and cleaning person, offices, $40 k for propaganda effectiveness testing, $50 k for protection, $14 k for information security. And $7 million for buying representatives and officials to be the public voice ousting their peers. I don't know how much you could dump into distribution, but it's necessary to push it into every nook and cranny of the USA.

Billionaires Beware America Awakens

You can use that slogan freely btw. Just make sure that all the groups you spawn or assimilate carry the same acronym of whatever slogan you use so the branding leverages credibility to each cell. You would probably want to run some possible group words through a random combination generator to see how viable your primary slogan is before you use it.

You could also forget all those money figures and have it be grassroots if you found enough prominent advocates and speakers.

Never have a organizational leader, if you give the oppressors a target they will shoot.

I suggest you project the campaign as a continuation of heroic upheavals like MLKJ and the Birmingham cronies or some other irreproachable historical or literary character. Don't use the living. Extra points if you use characters from the corporate media propaganda so they cannot tear down your rhetoric without tearing down their own. Do not use stories that are applicable to only some groups, like biblical stories.

Good propaganda will inspire people to do the job that needs to be done and instill fear in the people who stand in the way of the masses. Also it has to be fast. Americans have only 4 days or so before they just accept the circumstances they find themselves in even if they don't agree.

It's amazing how people like Snowdon can still come out of the woodwork as there seems to be a strong desire for people on social media to conform, use the same language and be one of the crowd and be accepted. The corporations, politicians and main stream press certainly encourage this.